If any more nails are inserted into Tony Blair’s coffin there will not be any room left for the corpse, and room must be left not only for the prime minister but also for the entire body of Blairism and the New Labour project to transform Labour into another bosses’ party.
Sacked Home Secretary Charles Clarke has attempted to emulate Geoffrey Howe’s role in speeding up the prime minister’s departure with a scathing attack on his lack of direction and purpose. It seems the Blairites want to copy their Tory masters in the ‘men in dark suits’ department, too.
According to the latest polls, Labour now trails the Tories even on health and education. Blair has managed to turn the NHS into a vote loser for Labour! This is a remarkable achievement indeed. In the Blaenau Gwent by-election (caused by the death of Peter Law, a former Labour member who had stood against Blairism) Blair’s candidate signally failed to win back the seat, while in Bromley they staggered in fourth behind the UK Independence Party.
The much vaunted ‘smooth transition’ from Blair to Brown would not imply any policy change whatsoever. The privatisation of public services, the promotion of ‘flexible’ labour and rejection of trade union rights, and the massive extension of means testing are all policies that have been promoted by Brown. Consequently, Blair’s replacement by Brown would propel Labour further along the course to losing the next election.
For fear that Blair leaving next summer will leave too long for Brown to be exposed as no more than Blair Mark Two, there has been talk from the Brown camp of calling a snap election, to ride a ‘wave of popularity’ (i.e. a wave of not being Blair). Rupert Murdoch has intervened to warn that his media empire may well back Cameron’s Tories in the event. Murdoch and co. do not decide who wins elections despite their own inflated views. However, their change of policy reflects something more profound.
As we have pointed out previously the capitalist class are more than happy with the way Blair and Brown have represented their interests. However, having squeezed the life out of Labour they are now ready to discard the empty husk. They have no problem with Brown - the myth that he was somehow to the left of Blair has all but evaporated. They do, however, have a problem with the mounting opposition on the backbenches, and, even worse, over their shoulders the growing opposition of the trade unions and the working class to their policies. A Brown Labour government could not be relied upon as a solid enough base to push through the attacks on the welfare state, and on jobs, pensions, wages and conditions that enfeebled British capitalism requires to maintain its profits. As a result Murdoch and co will soon reflect the wishes of the ruling class and revert once more to supporting the bosses’ first eleven, the Tory Party.
Labour’s slide in the polls is not the inevitable consequence of the ‘electoral cycle’ as the Blairites like to claim. Instead it represents a profound disappointment and disillusionment with Labour in office on everything from the war in Iraq, to attacks on pensions, and privatisation in health and education. Therefore, it stands to reason that for Labour to recover in the polls it must abandon these capitalist policies and begin to act in the interests of the working class. It is self-evident that Brown intends to do no such thing. The left must stand against him. A candidate should oppose Brown on the basis of a socialist programme. A socialist candidate who opposes the war in Iraq, who opposes privatisation and calls for the railways, water and all utilities to be brought back into public ownership, would find a ready echo amongst the rank and file of the party and the unions.
The idea of a handover - with no election - that Blair and Brown had imagined is clearly now dead in the water. There is a rising tide of opposition to Brown’ succession.
What an ideal opportunity to raise socialist policies throughout the labour movement! The left now needs a credible candidate. Not someone who is credible in the eyes of the media, however, or the city of London, but credible in the eyes of the labour movement and in relation to the needs of the working class. What is decisive then is policy. The forthcoming National Conference of the Labour Representation Committee would be an ideal springboard for a campaign in the unions and amongst Labour’s rank and file for a candidate committed to socialist policies. Such a campaign would breathe new life into the comatose body that the Labour Party has become under the Blairites.
Michael Meacher has apparently declared that he would like to stand. As a former minister in Blair’s government he is somewhat tarnished. Although Meacher would be seen as a relatively ‘left’ opposition to Brown, the most important question is what programme would he stand on? Although he has voted against compulsory Identity Cards and some of Blair’s attacks on civil liberties, Meacher voted for the invasion of Iraq and has voted in favour (and abstained) on foundation hospitals.
What is required is a socialist candidate. The chair of the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs, John McDonnell, would represent a far bolder opposition to Blairism. He is also the chair of the LRC, and the Public Services Not Private Profit trade union grouping that organised the recent successful lobby of parliament. In addition, he has been at the forefront of building Hands Off Venezuela. There is a groundswell of support building for such a candidate now in the unions and in the party.
The end of Blairism is drawing ever nearer. Whatever the immediate outcome of a leadership election – Brown would still be favourite to win – a new period of life and debate can be opened up throughout the labour movement.
The pendulum of history, which had moved a long way to the right under Blair, Brown and co, is beginning once more to move in the opposite direction. Marxism must play its full part in the coming struggle for socialist policies throughout the labour movement.